Full Text - Journal of Anthropology and Archaeology

Transcription

Journal of Anthropology and Archaeology
December 2014, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 77-106
ISSN 2334-2420 (Print) 2334-2439 (Online)
Copyright © The Author(s). 2014. All Rights Reserved.
Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development
DOI: 10.15640/jaa.v2n2a4
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/jaa.v2n2a4
Zooarchaeology in the Paraná River flood plain: GIS implementation at a
regional scale
Julieta Sartori1, María Belén Colasurdo2 & Fernando Santiago3
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of wildlife resources that human
populations which inhabited the Paraná River floodplain during the late Holocene
carried out. To that end, zooarchaeological information from 26 archaeological sites
analyzed by different research teams was collected. In order to perform the analysis
of the composition of the sets, a Geographic Information System (GIS) is used,
since this tool facilitates the comparison between the representations of the
different taxa spatially and temporally. This allows us to establish similarities and
differences in the use of wildlife resources carried out by the groups of hunters,
gatherers and fishers in the region. Most of the zooarchaeological analyses are
performed at a micro-regional level; however, due to the fact that this study is
developed at a regional scale, it enables a comprehensive understanding of the
structure of the different archaeofaunal assemblages in the diverse landscape units
which make up the Parana River floodplain. The application of the GIS to this
analysis provides simple graphics to visualize and interpret data and its variations in
terms of space.
Keywords: zooarchaeology – regional scale– GIS – Paraná River
1. Introduction
The Paraná River, which is by extension one of the most important rivers in
South America, for over 2,000 years, has been home to different populations that
settled on its shores and islands in order to make use of the resources offered by this
rich environment.
1Laboratorio
de Sedimentología, Geomorfología Fluvial (FICH-UNL), FUNDARQ.Ruta Nacional N° 168, Km
472,4. Santa Fe(3000). Email: [email protected], Phone:+54-342-4575245 Int. 132.
2Unidades ejecutoras en red CESOR/ISHIR -CONICET. 27 de Febrero 210 bis. Rosario (2000).
Email:[email protected], Phone: +54-0341-4851890 int. 260
3Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas-CONICET. Bernardo Houssay 200. Ushuaia (9410).
Email:[email protected], Phone: +54-02901-422314Int. 174
78
Journal of Anthropology and Archaeology, Vol. 2(2), December 2014
In Argentina, the Parana River floodplain covers a large area, including the
provinces of Santa Fé, Corrientes, Entre Ríos and Buenos Aires. The archaeological
evidence found belongs to hunters, gatherers and/or fishermen who inhabited the
area for 2,500 years BP until the European-Indian contact (Ceruti 2000). The
subsistence economy of these groups would have been based on hunting, gathering
and fishing, although populations which had a horticultural component stocks in their
diet would have been also found in the region (Loponte and Acosta 2004;Bonomoet
al., 2011a). During the time of European-Indian contact, the groups that inhabited the
area were called with several names (timbués; chanaes, corondá, guaraní, etc.), most of
which did not respect the original ethnic name. Archaeologists continued using such
names, mainly during the early to midtwentieth century; consequently, the material
record was correlated to a particular culture. The fact that the emphasis was on ethnic
diversity in general and the existing oneof the floodplain of the Parana in particular,
was due to the great interest of the researchers to generate a cultural image of the
region to order the existing archaeological information. That is why, much of these
early investigations focused on the stylistic features of pottery in order to establish
similarities and differences that could be ascribed to certain “cultural types” (see for
example, Caggiano 1984, Ceruti 1986, 1991, 2000, de Aparicio 1936, Frenguelli 1923,
González 1939, Lafón 1971, Outes 1918, Politis y Bonomo 2012, Rodríguez 1986,
1992; Torres 1907). These types or “cultural identities” (sensuCeruti, 1986) were
defined based on a specific and characteristic material record, and in turn, delimiting
their boundary in a spatio-temporal framework. Therefore, the names of each cultural
type usually refer to the geographical places from which the influence toward a
particular area is established.
In the late nineties, and during the beginning of the twenty-first century, a
theoretical turn started to take place and was evident in the treatment of subjects,
which, until then, were not developed in north-eastern Argentineand especially, the
focus was placed on studying other aspects of the archaeological record. One of the
subjects that started to be developed was the zooarchaeology, performing analysis of
faunal assemblages, although usually coming from only one deposit(Acosta and
Loponte, 2006; Feuillet Terzaghi, 2002; Pérez Jimeno, 1996; Santiago, 2002, among
others).Only after the first results at the site level, inter-site information began to be
integrated and this allows for making inferences at a regional level about subsistence,
ranges of action and use of resources (see Acosta et al. 2010).
Sartori, Colasurdo & Santiago
79
In this regard, the present study is considered to be a contribution to this
regional trend, since it allows for making a comparison between the archaeofaunal
records of 26 sites located in three areas of the Paraná River floodplain (Figure 1). In
order to carry out the analysis, abundance indices are used, generating averaged values
of faunal consumption, either for one of the analyzed sectors, or for a specific
temporal block of past.
Figure 1: Areas of the Paraná River floodplain in North-South direction:a)
Middle Paraná–Upper Sector (MP-US), b) Middle Paraná–Middle Sector (MPMS) and c) Delta of the Paraná River and Coastal Shallows (DP&CS)
80
2. Environmental Framework
The Paraná River is the second longest river in South America and, due to its
geomorphological and hydrological characteristics, is divided into four large sections:
the Upper Paraná, the High Paraná, the Middle Paraná and the Delta. Although the
study area covers the last two sections, due to an operational issue given by its wide
expansion, the Middle Paraná, in turn, will be subdivided into three sectors. Thus, the
space to be analyzed is constituted as follows: 1) Middle Paraná–Upper Sector (MPUS), 2) Middle Paraná–Middle Sector (MP-MS) and 3) Delta of the Paraná River and
Coastal Shallows (DP&CS).This division also responds to environmental differences,
which are reflected on the variability of the range of flora and fauna of each sector.
The environmental basic concepts of the sectors that allow for the creation of
archaeological expectations regarding the composition of the assemblages in each of
the areas to be analyzed are detailed below.
One of the most important characteristics of the region is that it has a high
environmental productivity, environmentally regulated by flood pulses of the Paraná
River (Bóand Malvárez1999; Neiff 1999). This river has a climatic effect which results
in the presence of a wedge of the Amazon Domain, which allows the introduction to
the south of typically Amazonian animal populations (Cabrera, 1971; Ringuelet and
Aramburu, 1957).Thus, the characteristic fauna of the whole area includes species
from the pampas which possess certain adaptive plasticity, such as the Pampas deer
(Ozotocerosbezoarticus) and other subtropical species, such as themarsh deer
(Blastocerusdichotomus). These species, like those that are characterized by being adapted
to water habitats, such as the coypu (Myocastor coypus), the capybara
(Hydrochoerushydrochaeris), the neotropical otter (Lontralongicaudis), the Yacare caiman
(Caiman sp.) and side-necked/toadhead turtles(Phrynops sp. and Hydromedusa
sp.)(SPANP, 1997), are characteristic of the entire river area of the Paraná River and,
for this reason, they are found in the three sectors considered in this study. Another
characteristic feature of the whole sector is the high concentration of fish, represented
by two main orders: Characiformes and Siluriformes.
81
The former include the Dorado (Salminusmaxillosus), the sábalo
(Prochilodusplatensis), the boga (Leporinusobtusidens), the Tiger Fish (Hopliasmalabaricus), the
pacu(Piaractusmesopotámicus), and mojarras (Aphyocharaxspp.,Astyanax spp.); and the
latter include the Spotted sorubim (Pseudoplatystomacorruscans), the catfish known as patí
(Luciopmeluduspati), the yellow catfish and the South American catfish known as bagre
(Pimelodusclarias and Rhamdiasapo, respectively), the granulated catfish
(Pterodorasgranulosus), the white catfish or commonly known asmoncholo
(Pimelodusalbicans) and the common pleco (known colloquially as a sucker fish or as
vieja del agua in Spanish) (Plecostomuscommersoni) (Ringuelet, 2004).
The sites that are located further north correspond to the MP-US and
zoogeographically are part of the Neotropical Region and the sub-district of Chaco
province, which is the richer site due to its biodiversity (Cabrera and Yepes 1940). It is
characterized by the presence of several species that are not present in the regions of
the middle sector and in the Delta, such as for example, the black howler monkey
(Alouattacaraya), the ocelot, also known as the dwarf leopard (Felispardalis), the maned
wolf (Chrysocyonbrachyurus), the brown brocket deer (Mazamagouazoubira) and the
Braziliantapir (Tapirusterrestris), among others.
The sites that are situated within the MP-MSin zoogeographical terms are part
of the Pampean domain (Guayana-Brazilian sub-region, Neotropical region)(Ringuelet
2004) and cover both the Pampean sector and the transitional area from the latter to
the sector of the Paraná Delta and Islands (Peña 1997). The sites of the DP&CS are
part of the Paraná Wetland [according to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance, Ramsar (2006)], and are located within the ecoregion
Paraná flooded savannah (sensuBurkartet al. 1999). Both environments are
characterized by typical pampas species, such as the Caviaaperea and the
Chaetophractusvillosus; but also by distinctive species already described, which have
adapted themselves to an aquatic life. Among them, the most outstanding species are
the capybara (Hydrochoerushydrochaeris) and the coypu (Myocastor coypus). With regard to
the wildlife that can be found in the most southern part of this sector, besides the
aforementioned fauna, the following species can be seen: the pampas fox
(Pseudalopexgymnocercus), theplains vizcacha (Lagostomusmaximus) and the White-eared
Opossum (Didelphisalbiventris) (MAGIC, 1997).
82
The most characteristic birds of the area include the firewood-gatherer
(Anumbiusannumbbi), thornbirds (Phacellodomus sp.) and spinetails (Synallaxis sp.), as well
as the short-eared owl (Asioflammeus). Regarding fish, they are more abundant than in
the MP-US, although the pattern of predominance of the two orders which were
mentioned for the northernmost sector is repeated.
3. The Archaeofaunal Record of Theparaná River Floodplain
Each of the sectors of the floodplain has varied data on what has been human
occupation in the past. Taking into account that the purpose of this section is to
summarize the information generated for each landscape, we will focus on the
development of the models that refer to the space occupation and subsistence of the
populations which inhabited the area.
With regards to the northernmost sector of the Paraná River floodplain,
within the MP-US, the oldest deposit corresponds to La Lechuzasite, which has a
radiocarbon date of 1760 ± 60 (Corneroet al. 2010). The human occupation model for
this area was proposed by Pérez Jimeno (2007) for groups that had occupied the area
after 1,500 years BP. The author argues that it would have been inhabited by semisettled human groups linked closely to lentic environments generated by the dynamics
of the Paraná River. In turn, the groups, would have had a specialized technology
(ceramic, bone, lithic technology, in some sectors), allowing them to base their
subsistence on fishing, mammal hunting (mainly, deer and rodents) and shellfish
harvesting. Lentic environments would have been intensively exploited during periods
of low river level, since during periods of flooding populations were divided and
moved westward, toward ecotonal areas, or to the highlands on the left side of the
Paraná River (Pérez Jimeno, 2007).
In the assemblages of sites which were studied by Pérez Jimeno, an
exploitation of cervids, such as the Blastocerusdichotomus and the Ozotocerosbezoarticus,
rodents (Hydrochoerushydrochaeris and Myocastor coypus) and fish, is reflected. However,
there are some differences in the composition of the assemblages which has been
explained in terms of space (Sartori and Pérez Jimeno, 2012).
83
Despite the fact that it is estimated that fishing was a significant activity for
the inhabitants of this sector, who would have exploited this resource in the nearest
bodies of water but not in the main riverbed of the Paraná River(Pérez Jimeno 2007),
it is interesting that the dominance of the fish in the assemblages decreases at the sites
located outside the floodplain(Satori 2013).
For the area corresponding to the PM-MS on the side of Entre Ríos province,
Bonomo et al. (2010, 2011) argue that occupations would have been mainly in fluvial
environments, accessing by water using canoes and where the water networks
integrated the circulation systems between the sites (Bonomo et al. 2010; 2011b). In
turn, they propose that many of the sites would have been located on human-made
earthen mounds (locally called “cerritos”), which would have been intentional ground
elevations (Bonomoetal. 2010. Therefore, they resume a discussion that has already
been generated by archaeologists at the end of the nineteenth century and at the end
of the twentieth century (see De Aparicio 1936);on one hand, the nature of these
constructions was subject of debate among archaeologists and, on the other hand, the
use that was given to them (see Serrano 1931). To Bonomo and the co-authors, if
their hypothesis is confirmed –hypothesis also proposed for the Lower Delta of the
Paraná River (Torres 1911; Zeballos y Pico 1878) - this area would be the southern
boundary of a type of architecture (earthen mounds) which is abundant in the
lowlands of South America.
With regards to the archaeofaunal remains of this sector, Bonomo indicate
that they are usually poor, since, from 15 sites, merely 4,095 bone and malacological
remains were recovered (Bonomoet al. 2011b). The authors deduce that the groups
which inhabited the area would have had an aquatic-based diet. The sites have several
taxa; the species that stand out mostly for their abundance and recurrence would
beMyocastor coypus, Hydrochoerushydrochaeris, Blastocerusdichotomus, Caviaaperea and
carnivores. M. coypus is the species most represented of all assemblages, while the
consumption of siluriformes and freshwater clams seems to have also played a
prominent role in the diet (Bonomo et al. 2010; Bonomoet al. 2011b).
To the MP-MS, but on the side of the Santa Fe province, there are lines of
research which have been proposed and are related to certain archaeological
expectations that are being developed by one of the authors of this manuscript.
84
They suggest that by 1,000 years BP and until the moment of contact between
Europeans and Indians, there would have been a recurrence in the occupation of
insular areas and sectors in the boundary of the Paraná River floodplain. The latter
would have been located on high grounds with a clear view and close to watercourses,
but not to those which were flooded. This allowed hunters-gatherers to obtain
supplies of vital resources such as water, firewood and great amount of vegetables and
potentially consumable animals (Sartori 2008, 2010a).
Moreover, the insular areas would have been strongly occupied due to their
access to wildlife resources, principally, the access to obtain fish in low-risk
environments which greater concentration. That is to say that there would be a
hierarchy in the occupation of certain types of spaces to the detriment of others,
which would be occupied frequently over time and would present a symbolic area,
established mainly by the presence of multiple burials.
Regarding wildlife resources for the area, they reflect the diversity of exploited
taxa, among which are those that have a highranking (i.e., B. dichotomus, O. bezoarticus
and H. hydrochaeris) and a low ranking(i.e. M. coypus, Dasypodidae and fish) in the
hierarchy. It was also corroborated in the different assemblages, the use of seven
species, including mammals and birds which had been certainly used, due to the fact
that they havecharacteristics associated with human activity (cut marks and/or
thermal changes). In addition, if in this count the macro taxon of fish is included, the
number increased even more, since ten species were documented in the different
records, among them, the most frequently seen species were catfishes
(Pimelodusalbicans
and
Pimelodusmaculatus)
and
the
granulated
catfish
(Pterodorasgranulosus).The composition of the assemblages allows for making inferences
based on the abundance and presence/absence of certain taxa. In this respect, the
variability of the species present indicates a predominance of fish in the insular areas,
whereas the areas in the boundary reflect a greater use of mammals. However, in both
cases, individuals would be choosing strategies to reduce or minimize the risk by
including low-ranking prey (coypu, Dasypodidae, and fish) in their diet (Sartori 2013).
Loponte and collaborators (Loponte et al. 1991, Loponte 2008, Loponte y
Acosta 2004, 2008)based on paleoclimatic and geomorphic information, developed a
theoretical model of space colonization for the Paraná Delta.
85
The earliest radiocarbon date for this area is from Playa Mansa with an age of
2,400 + 20 years BP (UGAMS 03302; Lama guanicoe; δ13C Corrected Age YBP±1s)
(Sartori and Colasurdo 2011).
For these situations, the archaeological expectations are groups which reduced
their mobility and have an exploitation of large-sized mammals (e.g. Cervidae
family).Nevertheless, the emphasis on catching fish had already started, thus,
subsistence was based on fluvial-lacustrine resources. Over time, this would go
changing, since there is a further intensification in the environmental exploitation,
which was reflected on an increased use of low-ranking resources caught in mass (in
particular, fish). In addition, the record shows a component of foods of vegetable
origin in the diet (Loponte 2008, 2010). This would have been generated through the
development of small-scale farming practices, which would have provoked an
increase in sex-age cooperation when obtaining food. This method would be
implemented through a system of central settlement and it would entail a high
residential stability. On the other hand, river mobility would have allowed the
development of extended ranges of exploitation and exchange based on
transportation of high volumes of products (i.e. grown food, farinaceous food,
fishing, etc.). Moreover, at some point prior to 1,300 years 14C BP, segmented
mortuary spaces of the residential areas would have been generated (Mazza and
Loponte2012).
With regards tothe archaeofaunal record of the sites corresponding to the
Wetland of the Lower Paraná River, Acosta et al. (2011)state that there is a high
degree of recurrence in the presence of fish, cervids and the Myocastor coypus. The
authors, in turn, highlight the low representation of Hydrochoerushydrochaeris, which
could answer those questions of cultural nature, such as for example, food taboos
(Acosta 2005). The assemblages of most of the sites are dominated by fish,
representing in some cases 80% and 90% of the NISP samples. Other taxa which had
played an important role in the diet are O. bezoarticus and B. dichotomus, prey that have
been exploited by a complete transportation ofthe carcases to the residential areas,
where they would have also been intensively exploited (Loponte, 2008;Mucciolo,
2010).
86
4. Methodology
The analysis presented in this study is a regional scale analysis, covering
different sectors of the Paraná River floodplain. To do that, data was compiled from
26 archaeological sites located in three sectors.
The definition of each assemblage was established based on the information
that is published by the authors who performed the analysis for each sample,
considering as a requirement that those samples consisted of over 100 specimens. For
the analysis, the NUSP (sensu Lyman 2008) or indeterminate were discarded, and taxa
were grouped in nine new categories. To the study of the archaeofauna, we
considered only the macro taxon of vertebrates; those remains which belong to the
category of invertebrates were excluded for the purpose of this study. The NISP of
each assemblage, the indices of abundance (IA) estimated, the bibliographic reference
sources, and the radiocarbon date for each assemblage are listed in table 1.
Table 1.NISP and Indices of Abundance (IA) of Each Assemblage
Methodologically, in order to produce an analysis that contributes to evaluate
trends in terms of space, the aggregation of taxonomic categories was performed and
they were included under the level of Family or even class (as suggested by Lyman,
2003). To this end, we collected the zooarchaeological data that is published for each
of the areas to be analyzed. Once this was done, we proceeded to:
-Geo-reference the sites which the wildlife assemblages come from.
-Form new groups through the clustering of taxa in 9 new categories (Fish, Rodents,
Mammalia Indet., Cervids, Reptiles, Birds, Dasypodidae, Camelidae, Carnivoridae).
87
-Calculate the indices of abundance (IA) for each of the mentioned resources,
following the proposal ofLyman (2003). The values of the indices show normalized
results, ranging from 0 to 1. Those values greater than and equal to 0.5 indicate a
predominance of the resource, and those less than 0.5 and close to 0 indicate an
absence of the resource (Lyman 2003, 2008). The formula used to calculate the
abundance index was the following:
∑NISPpeces/(∑NISPpeces+∑NISPaves+∑NISPcérvidos+∑NISProedores+∑NISP
dasypódidos+∑NISPreptiles+∑NISPCamelidae+∑NISPcérvidos+∑NISPCarnivorid
ae)
-The results were presented graphically using the GIS, by means of the ArcGIS 10.1
programme. With the accurate data of the IA, an interpolation of data was performed
for each resource, through the regular procedure called Inverse Distance Weighting
(IDW), using the aforementioned programme(Santiago and Vazquez 2013).
-Maps were created in raster format, called Bonescapes according to the method of
Santiago and Vázquez (2013), which derived from Isoscapes: Isotopic Landscapes,
(sensu West et al. 2010). Finally, we proceeded to cut the raster maps (these maps are
continuous surfaces where each pixel contains one numerical datum and in the case of
Bonescapes, data is the values derived from the indices of abundance) with a vector
map of the Paraná River floodplain.
It should be noted that the faunal data for the Paraná River floodplain is
extensive, although the level of analysis used to study the different assemblages is
heterogeneous, thus, being able to make fine-grained comparisons or integrative
analysis, is a challenge. The variability of each analysis consists in quantitative and
qualitative aspects. The differences within the former can be registered when the
indexes, such as the MNI and the MNE, are calculated, sincethe criteria on which
these estimates are based are not generally explained. For these reasons, and
consistent with the objectives of the present study, we decided to perform the analysis
based on the NISP. This will allow us to include more data.
However, we are aware of the difficulties of deriving subsistence patterns
directly from these values, but we consider that the NISP is the only measure of
taxonomic abundance available in most of the analysis, and its calculation is univocal.
88
Thus, this is appropriate for comparison purposes (Grayson 1984; Lyman 1994, 2003,
2008). Moreover, there are cultural taphonomic and methodological aspects that
should have influenced the representation of the taxa of the assemblages in the
floodplain. However, such differences are qualitative and quantitative and become
blurred when making coarse-grained analysis, where the aim is to establish general
trends regarding the existing variability in a region over time and to observe if there
are differences in the presence/absence of certain species in a given space.
In order to render the assemblages comparable in terms of their composition,
analyses of diversity were performed. What we are trying to establish is if there was
exploitation more intensely of some taxon in particular, and in that case, what
happened to the other species represented. Diversity can be understood as the
number of species within a community and their relative abundance (Margalef,
1968).Three aspects can be included in this concept and should be considered:
richness homogeneity and heterogeneity (L’ Heureux 2008; Lyman 2008; Mengoni
Goñalons, 2010). So as to perform these analyses, the statistical programme PAST
was used and the EvennesseˆH/S index was selected for homogeneity, the
Simpson’sindex1 for the dominance analysis. If all species in a single sample have the
same abundance, the index used to measure homogeneity should be the maximum
(with a value of 1) and, therefore, it should decrease towards zero while relative
abundances become less homogeneous.
5. Results
Of the 26 assemblages analyzed, 6 correspond to sites located in the MP-US, 6
to the MP-MS and 14 to the DP&CS. The represented taxa are distributed in a total
of 26 species, from which were established as comparable the following categories:
Fish, Rodents, Mammalia Indet., Cervids, Reptiles, Birds, Dasypodidae, Camelidae,
Carnivoridae (see Table 1). They have been established according totheir presence in
the record, which, in most of the cases,is due to anthropogenic agents.
All the assemblages totalled 154,138 faunal remains which belong to the
macro taxon of vertebrates; the smallest assemblage consists of 137 remains and the
biggest of 37,623 (Figure 2). Considering the total number of assemblages from broad
taxonomic categories, we observe that the fish constitute, on average, for the entire
Paraná River floodplain, 78%, whereas mammals represent 20% and birds together
89
with reptiles account for the remaining 12% (see Table 1). It should bepointed out
that the first four categories of Table 1 (Fish, Rodents, Mammalia Indet. and Cervids)
represent 98% of the faunal remains of the Paraná River floodplain.
If the composition of each sector is observed, in the area of the MP-US, the 6
sites have a total of 35,609 specimens with a mean of 5,934, while the median is 2.259
(Table 2). This area is the one that reflects a greater abundance of Cervids, Rodents,
Birds and Reptiles.
The MP-MS has the lowest NISP in their records presenting a total of 8,507, a
mean of 1,417 and a median of 657. The DP&CS is the area which exhibits the most
robust samples, presenting a total of 110,022, a mean of 7,858 and a median of 3,454.
90
Figure 2: Total NISP per Site
Table 2: Comparable categories: Fish, Rodents, Mammalia Indet., Cervids,
Reptiles, Birds, Dasypodidae, Camelidae, and Carnivoridae
Fish are present in 25 sites and, together, constitute the best represented
resource in terms of NISP in the entire area (N=120236). If we focus on abundance,
throughout the Paraná River floodplain, some differences can be observed.
In this regard, the most robust representations are observed in an increasing
South-North direction (Figure 3). This aspect is consistent with the proportions in the
presence of the other two resources which would have been essential to subsistence:
rodents and cervids. This means that an inversely proportional trend is observed
between fish and the other resources present. If attention is paid to each specific
sector, the case of the DP&CS represents 77% of all the remains assigned to this
Class. In that sector, fish greatly exceed 50% of the NISP of the assemblages in all
cases (see Acosta and Loponte, 2008; Loponte, 2008).
91
Figure 3: Bonescape of Fish
For the MP-MS, there is a decrease in fish abundance (IA=0.57) and also, into
this area, a difference was detected between the composition of the insular areas and
those which correspond to the sites located on the mainland. Such variation alludes to
the predominance of mammals on the mainland, while in the insular area, fish
predominate. This pattern is also observed in the MP-US, in which, however, the
decrease of fish (IA=0.63) is accompanied by a marked increase in cervids, rodents
and birds. Beyond this, it is precisely in the MP-US where the “Cerro Aguará” site is
located; sitein which the highest number of fish species identified was recorded
(N=23) (Musaliet al. 2013), while in the middle sector and the Delta between 5 and 11
taxa belonging to the macro taxon of fish were recorded in all the assemblages.
92
Rodents (N=18,396) constitute, together with fish, the other resource widely
represented throughout the Paraná River floodplain (Figure 4). Their remains
contribute 12% within the overall NISP for the entire floodplain, and if it is taken
into account that mammals as a whole constitute only 20% of the NISP, it can be
observed the importance of these resources in the diet of hunters-gatherers-fishers.
The spatial distribution of rodents as a broad category encompasses all sectors, and
they are present in 100% of the sites, whilst a significant increase in their abundance is
observed in the MP-MS (IA=0.10) and the MP-US (IA=0.19). Although, in the
DP&CS, the most abundant NISPs for this Family are recorded, the indices of
abundance are the lowest for the entire area (IA= 0.09), since fish resource is
predominant.
Figure 4: Bonescape of Rodents
93
Cervids, as a broad category, are present in all the sites of the three sectors,
but unlike the two other most abundant resources, they present a marked decrease in
terms of NISP (N=4673). Within the total of specimens for the floodplain, this
category accounts for only 3%, reflecting values which are significantly lower than fish
and rodents. The increase in the index of abundance of cervids occurs in South-North
direction (Figure 5), presenting the records of the MP-US and 70% of the items
identified for any of the three species that are recorded in the area. The representation
decreases increasingly in the assemblages of the MP-MS, while it increases again in the
DP&CS.
Figure 5: Bonescape of Cervidae
94
Among the other mammals which have low frequencies, there are the
Dasypodidae (N=315) and carnivores (N=66), which are represented in deposits of
the three sectors, although their abundance reflects a differential spatial pattern for
the sets of the MP-US and the MP-MS. Dasypodidae are present in 35% of the
assemblages and are distributed in four identified species. Their presence is greater at
the sites located in the MP-MS(IA=0.06) and in the MP-US (IA=0.03), while in the
DP & CS they are absent in most cases (IA=0.01). In the case of carnivores, of the
different species that are represented, not all of them have evidence of having been
exploited, while in the case of Dasypodidae, their presence is frequently associated
with human beings who took advantage of them.
Birds (N=806), as well as rodents and cervids, have greater abundance in the
MP-US, decreasing from North to South (Figure 6). As a macro taxon, their presence
is recorded in 57% of the sites and they have not been identified at specific levels in
most cases, due to the wide variability specific to the whole area and because of the
lack of reference collections.
95
Figure 6: Bonescape of Birds
Finally, reptiles (N=837) show a greater abundance in the MP-US (IA=0.019)
and the DP&CS (IA=0.001) is where they have a lower predominance (Figure 7). This
is also reflected on the fact that the area of the MP-US has 84% of the remains
assigned to this Class.
96
Figure 7: Bonescape of Reptilidae
The sector which has the largest number of NTAXA, on average (excluding
the variability of the macro taxon of fish) is the MP-US of the Paraná River floodplain
with 11.1; while the MP-MS (7.8) and the DP&CS (8.1) have similar values. The
calculation of the trend, which was carried out considering the values by site and by
area and reflected the greatest recurrence in the richness values specific to each sector,
is: 9 for the upper sector, 8 for the middle one, while that of the Delta has the lowest
value, which is 6. These values are consistent with the faunal variability which is
intrinsic to each of the sectors of the floodplain, where the northern region stands out
for its greatest richness.
97
In order to analyze the composition of the different assemblages in terms of
their diversity, we proceeded with the estimate of homogeneity and dominance
specific to each of the analyzed sections (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Homogeneity and Dominance Index per Site
Considering the composition of the assemblages of each area comparatively, it is
observed how the most homogeneous are presented in the MP-US, while the most
heterogeneous occur in the DP&CS. Generally speaking, only 23% of the assemblages
have homogeneous samples, in which the sites of the MP-US have the values that are
closest to 1. With respect to how individuals are distributed within each taxonomic
category, the samples with the greatest dominance of a taxaover the rest taxa
correspond to assemblages of the MP-MS and the DP&CS, in which there is a
predominance of fish. In the MP-US(except for the “Cerro Aguará” site), although
the samples are homogeneous, the low dominance indicates that all the identified
species have a good representation regarding the amount of specimens assigned to
category. In the MP-MS and in the DP&CS, then, inhomogeneous samples are
produced, samples in which there is a differential distribution of the elements in a few
specific categories.
98
6. Discussion
Given the environmental characteristics of each of the areas in which the sites
are located (characteristics reflected on an increase in biodiversity in south-north
direction), it would be expected that there are differences in the preponderance of the
resources exploited in each sector. This means that beyond the variations in the
composition of each particular assemblage, the expectation is that there will be trends
observed in each sector, which would come with the range of fauna. In order to
produce an analysis in terms of space, the GIS was considered a tool to visualize the
trends in each of the study areas and it allows for their comparison. The results
described in the previous section enabled the observation of recurrences regarding the
broad taxonomic categories dominating the assemblages in each sector. Although this
is extremely useful for the discussion of the resources which would have had a central
role in the subsistence of the groups constituted by hunters-gatherers-fishermen in
the region, this should be taken into consideration. Due to the fact that the categories
of analysis include different taxa, it becomes necessary to perform a finer-grained
analysis into the interior of each sector, since there are variations reflecting the
exploitation of certain species in particular to the detriment of others.
Regarding the fish present, at macro-regional level, trends can be established
since, in the sites of the DP&CS, the granulated catfish (Pterodorasgranulosus) is the prey
which dominates the assemblages and catfishes, known as bagres, are absent or poorly
represented (Loponte2008; Musali 2010). In contrast,in the sites located on the MPUS and MP-MS, catfishes(Pimelodellalaticeps, Pimelodusmaculatus andPimelodusalbicans) and
other species identified in the different assemblages (such as for example,
Plecostomuscommersoni, Hoplosternumlittorale and Trachelyopterusgaleatus) have a greater
presence within the NISP% of the samples (Musaliet al. 2013;Sartori 2013).In spite of
this pattern, the results should not be considered as absolute trends, since it is likely
that fragmentation, lack of diagnostic elements2and the wide variety of species in an
area with high diversity are covering a greater specific diversity in the assemblages.
Therefore, these trends should be contrasted while new contexts are deepened and
identification techniques specific to “fish” Class are improved.
99
Rodents are the second most exploited resource in terms of NISP and they
are found in all sites, even though, it should be noted that among the potentially
consumable species and those with evidence of having been consumable, differences
are registered. The coypu has the most homogeneous distribution, being found in all
assemblages and represented by a large amount of remains, while the capybara is
found in 54% of the assemblages and with low NISPs; this reflects a low exploitation
of this rodent which far exceeds the coypu in appearance. Its low NISP and its low
presence in the sites have led to consider one restriction on its use (Acosta, 2005),
especially, in the area of the lower Paraná and the Delta. Nevertheless, for the middle
area, Sartori (2013) suggests that variations in their representation might be given in
terms of space, since this animal is better represented in insular areas (Sartori, 2013).
Thus, in the northernmost area, Pérez Jimeno (2007) and Santiago (2002)
conclude that this large rodent would constitute part of the diet of those groups of
hunters-gatherers-fishers. This fact is also supported by the data of reports, articles
and ethnographic studies, carried out among indigenous groups from the Gran
Chaco, which record the consumption of this species.
With regards to the three identified species of cervids, in all assemblages, one
of them is recorded, even though there are differences among the most abundant
species. The largest species –the marsh deer (Blastocerusdichotomus)- is prevalent
throughout the area (since it is present in 88% of the sites). According to abundance,
the species that follows is the pampas deer (Ozotocerosbezoarticus), which is the second
largest species and it has a smaller representation, since it is present in 73% of the
assemblages. Finally, the Mazamaguazoubirais the smallest cervid and is only
represented by 8% of the analyzed assemblages. Probably, the preponderance of the
marsh deer will be a result of the spatial issues that are related to the ecological
requirements of this species and of the other two which inhabit the region under
study.
Thus, it should be noted that there are differences in the types of habitats
among the three species. Blastocerusdichotomus are frequently seen in areas located close
to lakes, rivers and marshy areas with tall grasses that provide them food and cover
them from predators (Pinder and Grosse 1991). However, Ozotocerosbezoarticus is adeer
typical of plains, open environments, without arboreal vegetation or with few islets
composed of xerophytic or semi-xerophytic trees.
100
That is to say that the presence of the latter species, in some assemblages,
would show links with the Pampas, close to the Paraná River flood plain.
Nonetheless, the presence of the marsh deer shows narrower ranges of action linked
to the insular area.
Camelids, as well as the presence of Rhea americana, would be one of the
animals which show contact with drier and not flooded areas. In this regard, it is
noteworthy the fact that the three species (deer, rheas and camelids) are always related
to each other: In all the cases in which R. Americana (ñandú) is present –species that
has the lowest frequency-, the other two species are also present. This bird, which is
the largest one in America, is found in a northern siteand in four sites that
corresponds to the Coastal Shallows, near to the area where the “Pampa Ondulada”
begins, while in the middle area, it has a total absence.
Thus far, we have discussed the preponderance of resources in terms of space
and this helped to establish that, in general terms, the most represented resources are
fish and, according to abundance, they are followed by rodents, and then,by deer.
Among these, the coypu and the marsh deer would have had the main role in the
diet/subsistence of the human groups in the area. This reflects the exploitation
circuits enclosed by the riverside environment, while in certain sectors (sites located in
the continental sector), it is registered a contact with the resources typical of the
Pampas. In spite of this, in most places, fish represent over 50% of the NISP,
whereas, when fish decrease, rodents and cervids increase and, in some cases,
particularly in the north, a greater diversity occurs between the taxa, thus,there is, for
example, an increase in reptiles and birds. In addition to this trend, it remains to
consider if there are temporal variations regarding the predominance of the most
exploited resources.
In order to analyze this aspect, the time period comprised in this study (late
Holocene) was divided considering the dates which belong to the earliest times
(between 2,400 and 1,700 years BP), intermediate times (between 1,290 and 940 years
BP) and late times, which even reach the European-Indian contact (between 650 and
370 years BP).
101
This time distribution is significant due to the fact that it allows the
investigation of the variations produced in a chronological period which might be
linked to the changes in the subsistence strategies. To that end, we proceeded to cross
the dates with the dominance of a resource on the different assemblages (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Dominance of One Resource through the Years
As shown in Figure 9, there is an increasing trend (although a slight one) of a
greater dominance of a resource (values closer to 1) in the late assemblages, resource
which, as discussed above, corresponds to fish. This would be indicating a
specialization which would have already started at least 1,000 years BP and this is
coincident with the proposed models for the area (Loponte 2008;Pérez Jimeno, 2007;
Sartori, 2013).
7. Conclusions
This study makes the summary of the archaeofaunal data available for the
floodplain and delta of the Paraná River. Studies in this area have increased
significantly over the past 15 years and reflect the effort of several research teams
which made an important elaboration of information. This is extremely positive since
it allows researchers to carry out integrated studies based on fine-grained information
already generated.
102
Throughout the area of the Paraná basin, there are a lot of species, among
which 26 are represented (besides the macro taxon of fish) in the zooarchaeological
records. However, fish and two species of rodents and deer represent the larger
amount.
This shows a recurring specialization for the entire area, although, if each of
the sectors is observed in detail, there are exceptional cases in which birds, reptiles or
Dasypodidae would have had certain economic importance. GIS implementation at
macro-regional scale enabled the assessment of the variability in the faunal
exploitation of the area and it would have been based on the same species, both in
northern and southern sectors. Therefore, it can be observed how –beyond the
environmental features of this sector in the Paraná basin-the differences in faunal
representation are established in the greatest-lowest predominance of fish in the
assemblages.
References
Acosta, A (2005). Zooarqueología de cazadores-recolectores del extremo nororiental de la
provincia de Buenos Aires (humedal del río Paraná inferior, Región Pampeana,
Argentina). Tesis Doctoral. Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Facultad de Ciencias
Naturales y Museo. Ms.
Acosta, A., S. Escudero, R. FeuilletTerzaghi, D. Loponte, and L. Pérez Jimeno. (2010).
"Conectando registros: variabilidad arqueológica en la cuenca del Paraná " in
MamulMapu. Pasado y presente desde la arqueología pampeana, vol. II. Editedby M.
Berón, M. Bonomo, C. Montalvo, C. Aranda, and C. Carrera Aizpitarte, pp. 17-28:
Libros del espinillo.
Acosta, A., L. Mucciolo, J. Musali and M. Arrizurieta. (2011). Avances y problemas
relacionados con el estudio del registro arqueofaunístico generado por los grupos
cazadores-recolectores del extremo sur de la provincia de Entre Ríos (humedal del río
Paraná inferior) Avances y perspectivas en la Arqueología del Nordeste, Editado por:
FeuilletTerzaghi, MR; Colasurdo, MB; Sartori, J. and Escudero, S. pp. 43-58. Buenos
Aires, Servicios Gráficos.
Acosta, A., and D. Loponte. (2006). Tafonomía y zooarqueología de cazadores recolectores
del humedal del río Paraná inferior (Argentina): síntesis sobre el estado actual de las
investigaciones. Revista do CEPAL.
Arrizurieta, M. P., L. Mucciolo, and J. Musali. (2010). "Análisis arqueofaunístico preliminar
del sitio Cerro Lutz," in MamülMapu: pasado y presente desde la arqueología
pampeana. Editedby M. Berón, L. Luna, M. Bonomo, C. Montalvo, C. Aranda, and
C. Carrera Aizpitarte. Buenos Aires: Editorial Libros del Espinillo.
Barboza, C., and M. Martín.(2012). "Análisis del registro arqueofaunístico de grupos
cazadores-recolectores del Holoceno tardío de la Llanura Aluvial del paraná Medio
(Sitio Los Bananos, Dto. Goya, Corrientes, Argentina)."
103
Barboza, C., and C. V. Píccoli.(2013). Ocupaciones humanas en la llanura aluvial del Paraná
medio durante el Holoceno tardío. El registro arqueológico del sitio Los Bananos
(Goya, Corrientes, Argentina). Anuario de Arqueología 5:117-132.
Bo, R. F. and A. I. Malvarez.(1999). El pulso de inundación y la biodiversidad en humedales,
un análisis preliminar sobre el efecto de eventos extremos sobre la fauna silvestre. En
Malvarez, A. I. (ed.), Tópicos sobre humedales subtropicales y templados de
Sudamérica, Montevideo, Oficina Regional de Ciencia y Técnica para América Latina
y el Caribe (ORCyT) MAB/Unesco.
Bonomo, M., M. de los Milagros Colobig, E. Passeggi, A. F. Zucol, and M. Brea. (2011a).
Multidisciplinarystudies at Cerro Tapera Vázquez site, Pre-Delta National Park,
Argentina: Thearchaeological, sedimentological and paleobotanicalevidence.
Quaternary International 245:48-61.
Bonomo, M., G. Politis and J.C. Castro.(2010).Primeros resultados de las investigaciones
arqueológicas en el Delta Superior del Paraná y su contribución al atlas arqueológico
de la provincia de Entre Ríos Folia Histórica del Nordeste; Lugar: Resistencia; vol. 18
p. 33 – 58.
Bonomo, M., G. Politis, and C. Gianotti.(2011b). Montículos, jerarquía social y horticultura en
las Sociedades indígenas del delta del río Paraná (Argentina). Latin American
Antiquity 22:297–333.
Burkart, R., Barbaro, N.O, SanchezR.and D., Gomez (1999).Eco-regiones de la Argentina.
Administración de Parques Nacionales, Buenos Aires.
Cabrera, A.L. (1971). Fitogeografía de la República Argentina. Boletín de la Sociedad
Argentina de Botánica 14:1-42.
Cabrera, A. and J., Yepes (1940).Mamíferos sudamericanos (vida, costumbres y descripción).
Historia Natural Ediar. Compañía Argentina de Editores, Buenos Aires.
Caggiano, M.A. (1984). Prehistoria del NE. Argentino. Sus vinculaciones con la República
Oriental del Uruguay y Sur de Brasil, Pesquisas, Antropología 38:1-109.
Ceruti, C. (1986). Algo sobre crítica y autocrítica en arqueología. Revista de Antropología 1(1):
19-24.
(1991). Arroyo Las Mulas I (Departamento La Paz, provincia de Entre Ríos): Relaciones
hombre-medio ambiente en la actualidad y alteraciones del sitio por acción antrópica.
Revista de Antropología 6 (10): 34-45.
(2000). Ríos y praderas los pueblos del Litoral. En Nueva Historia Argentina. Los pueblos
originarios y la conquista. M., Tarrago (comp.), Buenos Aires. Sudamericana.
Cornero, S., F. Solomita, and P. Curetti.(2010). "Componente arqueofaunístico del sitio La
Lechuza (Provincia de Santa Fe)," in Arqueología Argentina en los inicios de un
nuevo siglo, vol. I. Editedby F. Oliva, N. De Grandis, and J. Rodríguez, pp. 167-172.
Laborde Libros, Rosario.
De Aparicio, F. (1936). El Paraná y sus tributarios. En Historia de la Nación Argentina I, pp.
473-506. Imprenta de la Universidad, Buenos Aires.
FeuilletTerzaghi, M. R. (2002). El registro arqueofaunístico de vertebrados del sitio Playa
Mansa I (Arroyo Seco, Dpto. Rosario, Pcia. de Santa Fe). Aportes y perspectivas.
Tesis de Licenciatura. Escuela de Antropología. Facultad de Humanidades y Artes.
Universidad Nacional de Rosario.
104
Frenguelli, J. (1923). Los paraderos de la margen derecha del río Malabrigo (Dpto.
Reconquista, Provincia de Santa Fe). Paraná, Entre Ríos. Anales de la Facultad de
Ciencias de la EducaciónTomo I.
Grayson, D. K. (1984).Quantitative Zooarchaeology.Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological
Faunas.AcademicPress. Orlando.
Gonzalez, R. A.(1939). Excavaciones en un túmulo del Paraná Pavón. Revista Geográfica
Americana 12:71-76.
Lafon, C. R. (1971). Introducción a la Arqueología del Nordeste argentino. Relaciones de la
Sociedad Argentina de Antropología 5 (2): 119-152.
L’Heureux, G.L (2008). El estudio arqueológico del proceso coevolutivo entre las poblaciones
humanas y las poblaciones de guanaco en Patagonia meridional y norte de Tierra del
Fuego. British Archaeological, Reports International Series. Archaeopress, Oxford,
England.
Loponte, D (2008). Arqueología del Humedal del Paraná Inferior (Bajíos Ribereños
Meridionales). Series Monográficas, Arqueología de la Cuenca del Plata. Instituto
Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, Buenos Aires.
(2010). Cambios en la Arqueología del Nordeste Argentino. AnuariodeArqueología; vol. 2: 89
– 117.
Loponte, DandA. Acosta. (2004). LateHolocenehunter-gatherersfromthePampeanwetlands,
Argentina.ZooarchaeologyofSouthAmerica,
editadoporG.
L.
MengoniGonalons.BARInternational, Oxford. pp. 39-57.
Loponte, D., andA. Acosta.( 2008). "El registro arqueológico del tramo final de la cuenca del
Plata," in Entre la tierra y el agua: Arqueología de humedales del Este de Sudamérica.
Editedby D. Loponte and A. Acosta, pp. 125-164. Buenos Aires: Asociación Amigos
del Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano.
Loponte, D., Acosta, A. and L, De Santis (1991). Notas preliminares sobre algunos aspectos
distributivos del registro arqueológico en el Norte de la Provincia de Buenos Aires
Boletín del Centro. Publicación del Centro de Registro del Patrimonio Arqueológico
y Paleontológico, La Plata, pp. 78 – 87.
Loponte, D., A. Acosta, and P. Tchilinguirian. (2013). Nuevos aportes para la arqueología del
humedal del Paraná inferior: el sitio Médanos de Escobar. Relaciones de la Sociedad
Argentina de Antropología 38:19-35.
Lyman, R. L. (1994). Vertebrate taphonomy.CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge
(2003). The influence of time averaging and space averaging on the application of foraging
theory in zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:595-610.
(2008). Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Margalef, R (1968). Perspectives in ecological Theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Mazza, B and Loponte, D (2012).Las prácticas mortuorias en el humedal del Paraná inferior.
Arqueología Iberoamericana 13:3-21.
MengoniGonalons, G. (2010). Zooarqueología en la práctica: algunos temas metodológicos.
Xama19 (23): 83-113.
Mucciolo, L (2010). Intensidad de procesamiento de cérvidos en el sitio Anahí. MamülMapu:
pasado y presente desde la arqueología pampeana. Editedby: M. Beron, L. Luna, M.
Bonomo, C. Montalvo, C. Aranda y M. Carrera Aizpitarte, Libros del Espinillo,
Buenos Aires, pp. 335 – 348.
105
Musali, J., FeuilletTerzaghi M.R and J., Sartori (2013).Análisis comparativo de conjuntos
ictioarqueológicos generados por cazadores-recolectores durante el Holoceno tardío
en la baja Cuenca del Plata (Argentina). Revista Cuadernos del Instituto Nacional de
Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano - Series Especiales 1 (1):211-225.
Neiff, J.J. (1999). El régimen de pulsos en ríos y grandes humedales de Sudamérica. En
Málvarez, A.I. (ed) Tópicos sobre humedales subtropicales y templados de
Sudamérica. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Argentina, pp 97-146.
Outes, F. (1918). Nuevo jalón septentrional en la dispersión de representaciones plásticas de
la cuenca paranaense y su valor indicador. Anales de la Sociedad Científica Argentina
LXXXV. Buenos Aires.
Peña, M.(1997). En extinción. Animales extinguidos y amenazados de la Provincia de Santa
Fe. BuenosAires, Fundación Habitat.
Pérez Jimeno, L. (1996). Análisis Arqueofaunístico del Sitio “Barrancas del Paranacito",
Universidad Nacional de Rosario.
(2007). Investigaciones arqueológicas en el sector septentrional de la llanura aluvial del Paraná
margen santafesina-: la variabilidad del registro arqueológico. Tesis Doctoral.
Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Ms.
Pinder, L. and A. Grosse (1991).Blastocerusdichotomus. Mammalian Species 380: 1-4.
Politis, G., and M. Bonomo.(2012). La entidad Arqueológica Goya-Malabrigo Ríos Paraná y
Uruguay y su filiación Arawak. Revista de Arqueología 25:10-46.
Ringuelet, R. A. (2004). Zoogeografía y ecología de los peces de aguas continentales de la
Argentina y consideraciones sobre las áreas ictiológicas de América del Sur. Ecosur 2
(3).
Ringuelet, R. y R. Aramburu (1957). Enumeración sistemática de los vertebrados de la
Provincia de Buenos Aires. MAA, La Plata, Argentina, 119: 1-94.
Rodriguez, J.A. (1986). Planteamientos teóricos y metodológicos referidos al diseño de
investigación. Cuadernos INAPL 11: 163-191.
(1992). Arqueología del sudeste de Sudamerica. En Meggers (ed.) Prehistoria de Américadel
Sur: Nuevas perspectivas. Taraxacum, Washington D.C.
Santiago, F. (2002). Análisis Zooarqueológico de los Roedores del sitio Cerro Aguará (Santa
Fe). Su Implicancia Económica, Tafonómica y Paleoambiental, UNR.
Santiago, F., and M. Vázquez.(2013). "Información zooarqueológica e isotópica en el
archipiélago fueguino. Patrones y tendencias." III Congreso nacional de
zooarqueología Argentina, Tilcara, Jujuy, 2013, pp. 67.
Sartori, J. (2008). La cuenca inferior del río salado: un desafío para los análisis
arqueofaunísticos, Universidad Nacional de Rosario.
(2010a). "La fauna en la Cuenca Media e Inferior del río Salado: Los sitios Familia Primón y
Río Salado Coronda II como casos de estudio," in MamülMapu: pasado y presente
desde la arqueología pampeana. Editedby M. Berón, L. Luna, M. Bonomo, C.
Montalvo, C. Aranda, and C. Carrera Aizpitarte. Buenos Aires: Libros del Espinillo.
( 2010b). "Primeros resultados del análisis del registro arqueológico del sitio Pajas Blancas," in
Arqueología Argentina en el Bicentenario de la Revolución de Mayo. Editedby R.
Bárcena and H. Chiavazza. Mendoza: Facultad de Filosofia y Letras UNCuyo.
106
(2013). Variabilidad del registro arqueofaunístico de la cuenca media e inferior del río
Coronda (Margen derecha, Provincia de Santa Fe). Análisis desde una perspectiva
integral. Tesis doctoral inédita. Facultad de Humanidades y Artes. Universidad
Nacional de Rosario. Rosario. Ms.
Sartori, J., and Colasurdo, M.B. (2011). El análisis arqueofaunístico del sitio Playa Mansa:
Nuevas perspectivas. En Avances y perspectivas en la Arqueología del Nordeste.
Editedby: FeuilletTerzaghi, MR; Colasurdo, MB; Sartori, J. and Escudero, S. pp. 2542. S. ST Servicios Gráficos.
Sartori, J and Pérez Jimeno, L (2012). Zooarqueología en la llanura aluvial del Paraná: el sitio
Campo Binghi desde una perspectiva regional. Comechingonia 16 (2): 93-114.
Serrano, A. (1931). Arqueología del Litoral. Memorias del Museo de Paraná IV. Arqueología.
Paraná.
SPANP (Sistema provincial de Áreas Naturales Protegidas de Santa Fe). (1997) Sistema
Provincial de Áreas Naturales Protegidas. Gobierno de la Provincia de Santa Fe,
Administración de Parques Nacionales. Santa Fe, Argentina. Publicación de la
Asociación Cooperadora de la E.Z.E. Talleres Gráficos de Imprenta Ciscato, Santa
Fe.
The Ramsar Convention Manual: a Guide to the Convention on Wetlands (2006) 4th ed.
Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
Torres, L. (1907). Arqueología de la Cuenca del Río Paraná. Revista del Museo de La Plata
XVI:53-122.
(1911). Los primitivos habitantes del Delta del Paraná. Universidad Nacional de La
Plata,Biblioteca Centenaria, Buenos Aires.
West, J. B., G. J. Bowen, T. Dawson, E., and K. Tu, P. (2010).Isoscapes Understanding
movement, pattern, and process on Earth through isotope mapping: Springer.
Zeballos, E. and P. Pico (1878).Informe sobre el Túmulo Prehistórico de Campana. Anales de
la Sociedad CientíficaArgentina 2:244-260.

Full Text - Journal of Anthropology and Archaeology

Transcription

Similar documents

Useful advises to help you protect your Child From domestic

Life changes, the household changes Useful advises to help you

FISH PASSAGES:

Ad, 8.625x11.125, Laverson, RanchandCoast

NEW Build at Guardamar del Segura Los Estaños Beach

Interna onal Conference for Improving the Learning of Biology and

$545,000 - 5482 Chaparajos Court, DEL CERRO

our PDF Brochure here

Oportunidades Negocios RD Feb 2012 \(2\) \(3era Parte\)\(1\)

campana del rio - Atria Senior Living